Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name

[Phoenall]

There are no Jews in Gaza.

By whose choice?

There are no Jews in Areas A and B.

By whose choice?

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives! They would have been SLAUGHTERED. And you have the nerve to say it was a choice? As though there was another option?
Do you think Hamas and the PA would have accepted those Jews and welcomed them into their little enclaves? You think it would have turned into a thriving multi-cultural community? Seriously?

Irrelevant. We're talking about Palestine/Israel.

Entirely relevant. Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another. And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.

Settlements and settlers are not related to "no Jews" but rather a seperate issue relating to occupation, land theft and Israeli citizens.

If an Arab Palestinian buys a house does that give him sovereignty over that land? No? Then there is no land theft when a Jew buys or moves into a house either.

Are Arab Palestinians "occupying" Israel? No? Then there is no occupation when a Jew buys a house either.

In a peace agreement shall all the citizens which reside in the nations hold the nationality of the nation they reside in? Of course. Can they also be citizens of another nation? Of course they can. One country has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny another country granting citizenship to an individual. None.

The PA (let alone Hamas) won't even negotiate a peace treaty unless the "settlements" are emptied. What does that mean? It means all the Jewish people have to BE GONE before they will even sit down and TALK! It means they refuse to negotiate a solution which would consider Jewish people living in Palestine.

There is no equivalency here.

There are laws mandating that certain lands can be sold or rented ONLY to Jews. There are laws allowing Jews to bring in Jewish spouses but NOT non-Jewish spouses.

No there isn't. Not in Israel.

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives!

Are you talking about settlers or Palestinian citizens?

Who are the settlers and who are the citizens, what differentiates a Jew who owns land in the west bank and an Egyptian left behind when his unit was beaten in a pitched battle. What are the rules for saying who is a Palestinian again that were put in place by the UN ?

When a Jew moves to Palestine he takes Israel with him. Nobody else does that.

And when he was forced of his property in 1949 by the palestinians what then. Or are you denying that 1 million Jews were forced of their lands in 1949. So the land was always part of Israel, and in 1923 was granted to the Jews. How did the arab muslims get to steaol it ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

By whose choice?

By whose choice?

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives! They would have been SLAUGHTERED. And you have the nerve to say it was a choice? As though there was another option?
Do you think Hamas and the PA would have accepted those Jews and welcomed them into their little enclaves? You think it would have turned into a thriving multi-cultural community? Seriously?

Irrelevant. We're talking about Palestine/Israel.

Entirely relevant. Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another. And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.

Settlements and settlers are not related to "no Jews" but rather a seperate issue relating to occupation, land theft and Israeli citizens.

If an Arab Palestinian buys a house does that give him sovereignty over that land? No? Then there is no land theft when a Jew buys or moves into a house either.

Are Arab Palestinians "occupying" Israel? No? Then there is no occupation when a Jew buys a house either.

In a peace agreement shall all the citizens which reside in the nations hold the nationality of the nation they reside in? Of course. Can they also be citizens of another nation? Of course they can. One country has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny another country granting citizenship to an individual. None.

The PA (let alone Hamas) won't even negotiate a peace treaty unless the "settlements" are emptied. What does that mean? It means all the Jewish people have to BE GONE before they will even sit down and TALK! It means they refuse to negotiate a solution which would consider Jewish people living in Palestine.

There is no equivalency here.

There are laws mandating that certain lands can be sold or rented ONLY to Jews. There are laws allowing Jews to bring in Jewish spouses but NOT non-Jewish spouses.

No there isn't. Not in Israel.

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives!

Are you talking about settlers or Palestinian citizens?

Who are the settlers and who are the citizens, what differentiates a Jew who owns land in the west bank and an Egyptian left behind when his unit was beaten in a pitched battle. What are the rules for saying who is a Palestinian again that were put in place by the UN ?

When a Jew moves to Palestine he takes Israel with him. Nobody else does that.

And when he was forced of his property in 1949 by the palestinians what then. Or are you denying that 1 million Jews were forced of their lands in 1949. So the land was always part of Israel, and in 1923 was granted to the Jews. How did the arab muslims get to steaol it ?

That was Jordan. Don't forget that the Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan in a pre war agreement.

 

[Phoenall]

By whose choice?

By whose choice?

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives! They would have been SLAUGHTERED. And you have the nerve to say it was a choice? As though there was another option?
Do you think Hamas and the PA would have accepted those Jews and welcomed them into their little enclaves? You think it would have turned into a thriving multi-cultural community? Seriously?

Irrelevant. We're talking about Palestine/Israel.

Entirely relevant. Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another. And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.

Settlements and settlers are not related to "no Jews" but rather a seperate issue relating to occupation, land theft and Israeli citizens.

If an Arab Palestinian buys a house does that give him sovereignty over that land? No? Then there is no land theft when a Jew buys or moves into a house either.

Are Arab Palestinians "occupying" Israel? No? Then there is no occupation when a Jew buys a house either.

In a peace agreement shall all the citizens which reside in the nations hold the nationality of the nation they reside in? Of course. Can they also be citizens of another nation? Of course they can. One country has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny another country granting citizenship to an individual. None.

The PA (let alone Hamas) won't even negotiate a peace treaty unless the "settlements" are emptied. What does that mean? It means all the Jewish people have to BE GONE before they will even sit down and TALK! It means they refuse to negotiate a solution which would consider Jewish people living in Palestine.

There is no equivalency here.

There are laws mandating that certain lands can be sold or rented ONLY to Jews. There are laws allowing Jews to bring in Jewish spouses but NOT non-Jewish spouses.

No there isn't. Not in Israel.

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives!

Are you talking about settlers or Palestinian citizens?

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And surely you agree that Palestinians are guilty of targeting civilians.

But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.

Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

So. according to the 4th Geneva convention, a 3-year-old's throat can be slit? No wonder you identify with the Palestinians. You're one of them, through and through. Yet you will not go to live there, or even visit.

Deflection.

If US troops took their families to Afghanistan, who would be responsible for their safety?

Themselves, unless they were afghani's that had been forced to relocate in the US. Then the Geneva conventions would be on their side fully.

Not Israel's war zone at all as Israel has not declared war. It is the Palestinians war zone and they elect to use their civilian areas to fight from

 

[Phoenall]

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives! They would have been SLAUGHTERED. And you have the nerve to say it was a choice? As though there was another option?
Do you think Hamas and the PA would have accepted those Jews and welcomed them into their little enclaves? You think it would have turned into a thriving multi-cultural community? Seriously?

Entirely relevant. Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another. And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.

If an Arab Palestinian buys a house does that give him sovereignty over that land? No? Then there is no land theft when a Jew buys or moves into a house either.

Are Arab Palestinians "occupying" Israel? No? Then there is no occupation when a Jew buys a house either.

In a peace agreement shall all the citizens which reside in the nations hold the nationality of the nation they reside in? Of course. Can they also be citizens of another nation? Of course they can. One country has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny another country granting citizenship to an individual. None.

The PA (let alone Hamas) won't even negotiate a peace treaty unless the "settlements" are emptied. What does that mean? It means all the Jewish people have to BE GONE before they will even sit down and TALK! It means they refuse to negotiate a solution which would consider Jewish people living in Palestine.

There is no equivalency here.

No there isn't. Not in Israel.

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives!

Are you talking about settlers or Palestinian citizens?

Who are the settlers and who are the citizens, what differentiates a Jew who owns land in the west bank and an Egyptian left behind when his unit was beaten in a pitched battle. What are the rules for saying who is a Palestinian again that were put in place by the UN ?

When a Jew moves to Palestine he takes Israel with him. Nobody else does that.

And when he was forced of his property in 1949 by the palestinians what then. Or are you denying that 1 million Jews were forced of their lands in 1949. So the land was always part of Israel, and in 1923 was granted to the Jews. How did the arab muslims get to steaol it ?

That was Jordan. Don't forget that the Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan in a pre war agreement.

LINK as no such treaty exists.


And it was the Palestinians that gained the most by evicting the Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives!

Are you talking about settlers or Palestinian citizens?

Who are the settlers and who are the citizens, what differentiates a Jew who owns land in the west bank and an Egyptian left behind when his unit was beaten in a pitched battle. What are the rules for saying who is a Palestinian again that were put in place by the UN ?

When a Jew moves to Palestine he takes Israel with him. Nobody else does that.

And when he was forced of his property in 1949 by the palestinians what then. Or are you denying that 1 million Jews were forced of their lands in 1949. So the land was always part of Israel, and in 1923 was granted to the Jews. How did the arab muslims get to steaol it ?

That was Jordan. Don't forget that the Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan in a pre war agreement.

LINK as no such treaty exists.


And it was the Palestinians that gained the most by evicting the Jews.

It wasn't a treaty. It was an under the table agreement.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives! They would have been SLAUGHTERED. And you have the nerve to say it was a choice? As though there was another option?
Do you think Hamas and the PA would have accepted those Jews and welcomed them into their little enclaves? You think it would have turned into a thriving multi-cultural community? Seriously?

Entirely relevant. Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another. And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.

If an Arab Palestinian buys a house does that give him sovereignty over that land? No? Then there is no land theft when a Jew buys or moves into a house either.

Are Arab Palestinians "occupying" Israel? No? Then there is no occupation when a Jew buys a house either.

In a peace agreement shall all the citizens which reside in the nations hold the nationality of the nation they reside in? Of course. Can they also be citizens of another nation? Of course they can. One country has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny another country granting citizenship to an individual. None.

The PA (let alone Hamas) won't even negotiate a peace treaty unless the "settlements" are emptied. What does that mean? It means all the Jewish people have to BE GONE before they will even sit down and TALK! It means they refuse to negotiate a solution which would consider Jewish people living in Palestine.

There is no equivalency here.

No there isn't. Not in Israel.

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives!

Are you talking about settlers or Palestinian citizens?

And surely you agree that Palestinians are guilty of targeting civilians.

But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.

Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

So. according to the 4th Geneva convention, a 3-year-old's throat can be slit? No wonder you identify with the Palestinians. You're one of them, through and through. Yet you will not go to live there, or even visit.

Deflection.

If US troops took their families to Afghanistan, who would be responsible for their safety?

Themselves, unless they were afghani's that had been forced to relocate in the US. Then the Geneva conventions would be on their side fully.

Not Israel's war zone at all as Israel has not declared war. It is the Palestinians war zone and they elect to use their civilian areas to fight from

So the Palestinians created a war zone in their own neighborhoods so that the Israelis could defend themselves when they invade Palestine?

 

[Coyote]

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And surely you agree that Palestinians are guilty of targeting civilians.

Absolutely.

But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.

I disagree. Military targets are legitimate targets in a war, and causing fear and disruption is a legitimate military goal. IMO - the key distinction that makes something terrorism is the target.

 

[Coyote]

There are no Jews in Gaza.

By whose choice?

There are no Jews in Areas A and B.

By whose choice?

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives! They would have been SLAUGHTERED. And you have the nerve to say it was a choice? As though there was another option?
Do you think Hamas and the PA would have accepted those Jews and welcomed them into their little enclaves? You think it would have turned into a thriving multi-cultural community? Seriously?

I think in that case there was no option but not for the reason's you state. They were Israeli citizens and Israel would have been bound to protect them. They wouldn't be Palestinian citizens, they would be Isreali citizens occupying Palestinian land. That's not a Judenrein policy, that's a product of the conflict and occupation.

Irrelevant. We're talking about Palestine/Israel.

Entirely relevant. Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another. And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.

Settlements and settlers are not related to "no Jews" but rather a seperate issue relating to occupation, land theft and Israeli citizens.

If an Arab Palestinian buys a house does that give him sovereignty over that land? No? Then there is no land theft when a Jew buys or moves into a house either.

Are Arab Palestinians "occupying" Israel? No? Then there is no occupation when a Jew buys a house either.

That argument is disengenius.

West Bank is under occupation - it's certainly under military law (at least the Palestinian residents are), while the Jewish residents enjoy the protections of Israeli civil law. It has nothing to do with buying and selling houses and whether it was theft or honest brokering. Many Palestinians had not registered their land when Israel became a state - they lost it, and the state took it. And the state did not sell it to non-Jews.

Land theft occurs despite the popular narrative that most of it was legally bought (maybe that too is propoganda):

How is this not theft? (note - Jewish land is not confiscated)
Israeli Land-grabs and Settlements: More Than Merely 'Counterproductive'
Palestinian villagers tilled their land so well, Israel is now confiscating it from them - Israel News
Why Israel Is No Better Than Russia
Airbnb profits from Israeli theft of Palestinian Land with Squatter Listings

In a peace agreement shall all the citizens which reside in the nations hold the nationality of the nation they reside in? Of course. Can they also be citizens of another nation? Of course they can. One country has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny another country granting citizenship to an individual. None.

Ideally, I totally agree - but each country has a right to determine who is and isn't a citizen and not all countries allow dual citizenship.

The PA (let alone Hamas) won't even negotiate a peace treaty unless the "settlements" are emptied. What does that mean? It means all the Jewish people have to BE GONE before they will even sit down and TALK! It means they refuse to negotiate a solution which would consider Jewish people living in Palestine.

There is no equivalency here.

No. It means the settlements must be gone. The settlements have been a long standing cancer in the peace negotiations - they are viewed as illegal occupation of territory that should belong to the Palestinians and they are viewed as illegal. Most, if not all, are also Jewish only and their construction and associated Jewish-only roads, divided farm land, made access to some areas impossible or added hours in distance to go around. The Palestinians suffered attacks from the Jewish settlers, arson, property destruction and even murder (note - this is not to say the Palestinians did not engage in violence also). The Palestinians also seldom saw settlers brought to justice for this. Who wants symbols of an apartheid-like occupation to remain?

There is plenty of equivalency.

There are laws mandating that certain lands can be sold or rented ONLY to Jews. There are laws allowing Jews to bring in Jewish spouses but NOT non-Jewish spouses.

No there isn't. Not in Israel.

[/QUOTE]

Naomi Darom - Israeli News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

In the case of a spouse from the territories, reunification becomes almost impossible. A temporary order from 2003 forbids granting Israeli citizenship or residency to Palestinian residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip who are partners of Israeli citizens. Men are not allowed to begin the process before the age of 35, and women before age 25.

As a result of a legal precedent from 1999, a law was passed to the effect that a foreign citizen who files a request for family reunification cannot be expelled from the country until a final decision is made on his case. However, according to a more recent amendment, this law does not apply to Palestinians in the territories. This creates a situation in which a partner who lived in Israel before he is granted residency could be subject to expulsion, arrest and even the criminal charges due to illegal residency.

On the other hand, the Interior Ministry requires proof that the couple is living together, and that the center of their life is in Israel. How are they supposed to provide that without being subject to expulsion? Even when the process is successful, Palestinians do not receive permanent residency or an ID card, but rather a military permit to live in Israel, which does not grant social welfare rights or health insurance, or even a driving license.

“People live here for 20 years without health insurance and without rights,” Lustigman explains.​

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another. And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.

[

Thus explaining your many tens of thousands of postings over the years championing their agenda.


I have never really understood the Pallywood cult, but their savagery certainly does elicit the sort of loyalty you show them.

 

[Coyote]

Inequalities in Israel

Social and cultural attitudes:

Racism in Israel on the rise

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel's (ACRI) report on civil rights in Israel paints a bleak picture: Increasing racism, restriction of personal freedoms and discrimination even within the Knesset walls – and that's just scratching the surface.

Published Saturday, the report reveled that Israeli youths are bombarded with stereotypic, racist imagery, and their opinions have developed accordingly: Over two-thirds Israeli teen believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together.

The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI's racism poll, taken in March of 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes.

Fifty percent of those polled also said they believed Israel should encourage its Arab citizens to emigrate.
Racism in Israel is on the rise, said the report: in 2006 there was a 26% increase in racist incidents towards Arabs and the general sense of hatred towards them has doubled. ​

From the same article - inequalities in the allocation of resources:

Furthermore, in the Second Lebanon War, some 40% of the citizens killed were Israeli-Arabs, mostly due to a severe lack of shelters, but still – the rehabilitation and fortification of Arab towns remains, according to the report, ridiculously low.​

And

The report devotes a special section to the recently approves JNF bill, which allows Jewish National Fund land – which make up 13% of all State owned land – to be allocated to Jews only.

Laws which allow communities to deny Arab Israeli's residence and denying the Arab Israeli's the ability to commemerate their history: Israel Knesset: New Israel laws discriminate against Israeli Arabs, critics say
One law legalizes the practice of using "admissions committees" in small towns in the Negev and Galilee to reject would-be residents based on their social "suitability," a vague term opponents fear could be used to bar gays, black Israelis, single women, Christians, Muslims and secular families as well as Arabs.

The second law is aimed at imposing fines on Arab towns, local authorities and state-funded organizations that commemorate Nakba Day, which falls near Israel's Independence Day. Some Arab Israelis refer to the day Israel gained statehood as a nakba, or catastrophe, because it resulted in the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians.​

Discrimination: Arab citizens of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and none are examples of apartheid, but of overt racism and a means of suppressing violence. Just as America bans certain groups from holding similar festivals.

Again - I have not said Israel IS apartheid, which implies a specific legal and governmental structure in place. What I have said is it has apartheid-like attributes and one of the most distinctive is that Arabs can be legally forbidden from living in certain areas and prevented from purchasing land that is only allocated to Jews. The other troubling aspect is Israel's weird system of citizenship that enforces a concept of seperateness among it's citizens - rather than all embracing an Israeli identity they are divided into Jews, Arab-Israeli's, and I believe there is a move to create a new category further dividing them by seperating the Arabs into Christian and Muslim.

It seems to me this divisive form of citizenship (which are not all equal) is destabilizing. Rather than all embracing an Israeli identity, they are embracing sub identities that legislated.

Let me see if I have this right

Not quite. It's not what I want - it's what you asked for - examples of enequalities that are similar to apartheid.

You want only Israel to pass laws making it illegal to bar people from living in an area so that it creates intolerance and violence. When you see the results first hand you will be the first to demand the arab muslims be segregated to protect the rest of society. You turn a blind eye to this being done in your own nation and arab muslim nations and single out the Jews once again.

This has what to do with the topic? We're not talking about other arab nations, so stop deflecting. Your argument could just as easily be used to support the seperation of black and white people (ie apartheid). Is this a good thing? Or an unjust thing?

What about the US way that segregates its citizens according to ethnicity, culture and nation of origin, Why not compare that to what is happening in Israel, and see why they are no different.

The US has it's problems (as does the UK) - and you keep bringing this up to deflect from the actual topic. One main difference is that it is ILLEGAL in the US - it still occurs, under the table but it is ILLEGAL. Do you understand the difference?

It is your Jew hatred that makes you see Israel as a racist and intolerant nation when in fact it is one of the most tolerant and least racist ones. It accepts all ethnicities and cultures as equals, but you pick up on the small number of Jews that are intolerant as if they are the norm.

No, it's not "Jew hatred", which seems be your pathetic fallback position. It's actual practices and laws that legitimize discrimination. You seem to to have a pie-in-the-sky attitude that Israel is somehow an angelic haven. It's not. It's better than some, worse than some - like any other country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/opinion/not-all-israeli-citizens-are-equal.html
Israel's discrimination against its Arab citizens

The minorities are now embracing Israel and are clamouring to join the IDF so they can protect their nation from attack. And the Jews are very grateful and accept them as true Israeli citizens. Strange how the biggest draft dodgers happen to be the ultra orthodox who are against non Jews in the first place, yet are seen by team Palestine as the real Jews.

That's not totally true. There have been issues with the Ethiopian Jews and the Indian Jews. I think the biggest issue is that Israel divides it's citizenship. Instead of being an Isreali citizen, you are either a Jewish Israeli or Arab Israeli. It can't help but encourage discrimminatory and divisive attitudes. One should be Israeli, and all Israeli.

 

[Coyote]

Given that, you would think the argument - the consistent argument - would be both people qualify as indigenous, so therefore if one has greater rights than another (assuming they continue that claim) then it can't be because one is indigenous.

Yes, but you are making "long-term residence" equivalent to "indigenous". The pro-Israel posters do not make that equivalence. They define "indigenous" as the "culture originating in that place pre-invasion and pre-colonization by another culture". So the pro-Israel argument is consistent.

The anti-Israel posters claim that invasion and colonization of a culture maintains the condition of indigeneity and that the invading and colonizing culture becomes part of the indigenous group. But they apply that to Asseryian, Babylonian, Roman and Arab cultures and reject it with Jewish culture (despite the fact that the Jewish people are returning and not invading or colonizing). That is the double standard.

I think the answer is the object is not a neutralization but a spreading of terror and uncertainty in the enemy you are fighting ...

Which is the definition of terrorism, imo.

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And where did you get that from as terrorism is the forcing of one group to submit to another groups religion, politics, culture by use of violence. Which is what the Palestinians are doing

There is no definition of terrorism that goes like that.

Why Defining Terrorism Matters - The Monkey Cage

Academics have their own set of rules for defining terrorism. Despite intra-field debate, most North American scholars adopt the three-prong definition of terrorism: it is politically motivated, perpetrated by non-state actors like lone wolves or organizations, and targets civilians rather than the military. This means that when a government attacks civilians like in Assad’s Syria, when the perpetrators are motivated by pecuniary gain like on the streets of Detroit, or when they target military assets like the USS Cole, academic purists would distinguish such acts of violence from terrorism.


When it comes to defining terrorism, motives therefore matter. Mass shootings—like the one in Tucson by Jared Loughner, the one in the Aurora movie theater by James Holmes, the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza, or the New Orleans Mother’s Day shooting—would be treated as something else. Some scholars provide no distinction between rampage violence and terrorist acts. But in reality, there is an important difference—rampage shooters are not politically motivated.


Another important criterion is target selection. Guerilla attacks on military targets are often distinguished from terrorist attacks, which are directed against civilian targets. Critics of the Obama administration have hammered him for his hesitancy to label Benghazi as a terrorist attack. In fact, Benghazi was not a terrorist attack. It was a guerilla attack against high-level U.S. diplomats, hardly a case of indiscriminate violence. When most academics think about a terrorist attacks, we recall 9/11 and the Boston marathon because ordinary citizens were targeted, rather than agents of the state.​

 

[Billo_Really]

Thus explaining your many tens of thousands of postings over the years championing their agenda.


I have never really understood the Pallywood cult, but their savagery certainly does elicit the sort of loyalty you show them.

Um............that wasn't Coyote, that was Shusha who said it.

 

[Phoenall]

Who are the settlers and who are the citizens, what differentiates a Jew who owns land in the west bank and an Egyptian left behind when his unit was beaten in a pitched battle. What are the rules for saying who is a Palestinian again that were put in place by the UN ?

When a Jew moves to Palestine he takes Israel with him. Nobody else does that.

And when he was forced of his property in 1949 by the palestinians what then. Or are you denying that 1 million Jews were forced of their lands in 1949. So the land was always part of Israel, and in 1923 was granted to the Jews. How did the arab muslims get to steaol it ?

That was Jordan. Don't forget that the Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan in a pre war agreement.

LINK as no such treaty exists.


And it was the Palestinians that gained the most by evicting the Jews.

It wasn't a treaty. It was an under the table agreement.

So not valid, and not worth the paper it was written on

 

[Phoenall]

You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives!

Are you talking about settlers or Palestinian citizens?

Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

So. according to the 4th Geneva convention, a 3-year-old's throat can be slit? No wonder you identify with the Palestinians. You're one of them, through and through. Yet you will not go to live there, or even visit.

Deflection.

If US troops took their families to Afghanistan, who would be responsible for their safety?

Themselves, unless they were afghani's that had been forced to relocate in the US. Then the Geneva conventions would be on their side fully.

Not Israel's war zone at all as Israel has not declared war. It is the Palestinians war zone and they elect to use their civilian areas to fight from

So the Palestinians created a war zone in their own neighborhoods so that the Israelis could defend themselves when they invade Palestine?

When did Israel invade Palestine then.

They have defended against islamonazi attacks, terrorism and violence since 1948, and repelled every invasion that has been tried. recently they have had to oppose hamas fighting from civilian areas and turning gaza into a war zone for propaganda purposes. So yes the Palestinians have turned gaza into a war zone so the Israeli's were forced to defend themselves from attack from Palestine. Israel has not invaded. it has defended against illegal weapons.

 

[Shusha]

No. It means the settlements must be gone. The settlements have been a long standing cancer in the peace negotiations - they are viewed as illegal occupation of territory that should belong to the Palestinians and they are viewed as illegal. Most, if not all, are also Jewish only and their construction and associated Jewish-only roads, divided farm land, made access to some areas impossible or added hours in distance to go around. The Palestinians suffered attacks from the Jewish settlers, arson, property destruction and even murder (note - this is not to say the Palestinians did not engage in violence also). The Palestinians also seldom saw settlers brought to justice for this. Who wants symbols of an apartheid-like occupation to remain

And you don't see how THIS is a double standard with what you wrote on the Humanitarian Relocation thread:

No, it's not humanitarian if it's against the will of the population. It's an absolutely inhumane thing to do.

You insist that an absolutely inhumane thing must be done when it comes to the Jewish people living in wanna-be-Palestine. And yet you go ballistic over the suggestion that hostile Arab Muslim Palestinians be transported to a place where their hostility won't jeopardize lives.

And yet you tell me you don't have a double standard?

 

[Phoenall]

I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.

And surely you agree that Palestinians are guilty of targeting civilians.

Absolutely.

But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.

I disagree. Military targets are legitimate targets in a war, and causing fear and disruption is a legitimate military goal. IMO - the key distinction that makes something terrorism is the target.

No it is the reason behind the attacks, and I the case of the I/P conflict the arab muslims have been using terrorism to enforce islam on the whole of the M.E. since the ottomans were beaten in 1917. And they have failed every time, even with the amount of propaganda the have tried to use.

 

[Shusha]

Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Meaning ALL Israelis are viable military targets and are "fair game" for the killing. What a vile belief system you have.

 

[Phoenall]

Inequalities in Israel

Social and cultural attitudes:

Racism in Israel on the rise

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel's (ACRI) report on civil rights in Israel paints a bleak picture: Increasing racism, restriction of personal freedoms and discrimination even within the Knesset walls – and that's just scratching the surface.

Published Saturday, the report reveled that Israeli youths are bombarded with stereotypic, racist imagery, and their opinions have developed accordingly: Over two-thirds Israeli teen believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together.

The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI's racism poll, taken in March of 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes.

Fifty percent of those polled also said they believed Israel should encourage its Arab citizens to emigrate.
Racism in Israel is on the rise, said the report: in 2006 there was a 26% increase in racist incidents towards Arabs and the general sense of hatred towards them has doubled. ​

From the same article - inequalities in the allocation of resources:

Furthermore, in the Second Lebanon War, some 40% of the citizens killed were Israeli-Arabs, mostly due to a severe lack of shelters, but still – the rehabilitation and fortification of Arab towns remains, according to the report, ridiculously low.​

And

The report devotes a special section to the recently approves JNF bill, which allows Jewish National Fund land – which make up 13% of all State owned land – to be allocated to Jews only.

Laws which allow communities to deny Arab Israeli's residence and denying the Arab Israeli's the ability to commemerate their history: Israel Knesset: New Israel laws discriminate against Israeli Arabs, critics say
One law legalizes the practice of using "admissions committees" in small towns in the Negev and Galilee to reject would-be residents based on their social "suitability," a vague term opponents fear could be used to bar gays, black Israelis, single women, Christians, Muslims and secular families as well as Arabs.

The second law is aimed at imposing fines on Arab towns, local authorities and state-funded organizations that commemorate Nakba Day, which falls near Israel's Independence Day. Some Arab Israelis refer to the day Israel gained statehood as a nakba, or catastrophe, because it resulted in the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians.​

Discrimination: Arab citizens of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and none are examples of apartheid, but of overt racism and a means of suppressing violence. Just as America bans certain groups from holding similar festivals.

Again - I have not said Israel IS apartheid, which implies a specific legal and governmental structure in place. What I have said is it has apartheid-like attributes and one of the most distinctive is that Arabs can be legally forbidden from living in certain areas and prevented from purchasing land that is only allocated to Jews. The other troubling aspect is Israel's weird system of citizenship that enforces a concept of seperateness among it's citizens - rather than all embracing an Israeli identity they are divided into Jews, Arab-Israeli's, and I believe there is a move to create a new category further dividing them by seperating the Arabs into Christian and Muslim.

It seems to me this divisive form of citizenship (which are not all equal) is destabilizing. Rather than all embracing an Israeli identity, they are embracing sub identities that legislated.

Let me see if I have this right

Not quite. It's not what I want - it's what you asked for - examples of enequalities that are similar to apartheid.

You want only Israel to pass laws making it illegal to bar people from living in an area so that it creates intolerance and violence. When you see the results first hand you will be the first to demand the arab muslims be segregated to protect the rest of society. You turn a blind eye to this being done in your own nation and arab muslim nations and single out the Jews once again.

This has what to do with the topic? We're not talking about other arab nations, so stop deflecting. Your argument could just as easily be used to support the seperation of black and white people (ie apartheid). Is this a good thing? Or an unjust thing?

What about the US way that segregates its citizens according to ethnicity, culture and nation of origin, Why not compare that to what is happening in Israel, and see why they are no different.

The US has it's problems (as does the UK) - and you keep bringing this up to deflect from the actual topic. One main difference is that it is ILLEGAL in the US - it still occurs, under the table but it is ILLEGAL. Do you understand the difference?

It is your Jew hatred that makes you see Israel as a racist and intolerant nation when in fact it is one of the most tolerant and least racist ones. It accepts all ethnicities and cultures as equals, but you pick up on the small number of Jews that are intolerant as if they are the norm.

No, it's not "Jew hatred", which seems be your pathetic fallback position. It's actual practices and laws that legitimize discrimination. You seem to to have a pie-in-the-sky attitude that Israel is somehow an angelic haven. It's not. It's better than some, worse than some - like any other country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/opinion/not-all-israeli-citizens-are-equal.html
Israel's discrimination against its Arab citizens

The minorities are now embracing Israel and are clamouring to join the IDF so they can protect their nation from attack. And the Jews are very grateful and accept them as true Israeli citizens. Strange how the biggest draft dodgers happen to be the ultra orthodox who are against non Jews in the first place, yet are seen by team Palestine as the real Jews.

That's not totally true. There have been issues with the Ethiopian Jews and the Indian Jews. I think the biggest issue is that Israel divides it's citizenship. Instead of being an Isreali citizen, you are either a Jewish Israeli or Arab Israeli. It can't help but encourage discrimminatory and divisive attitudes. One should be Israeli, and all Israeli.

And you failed to produce any, yet claimed that what you did provide was examples of apartheid even though they are practised by all nations. You need to look closely at what is deemed to be apartheid before making comparisons again

 

[Phoenall]

Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Meaning ALL Israelis are viable military targets and are "fair game" for the killing. What a vile belief system you have.

Thing is ask him to justify his clams and he will ignore you, or deflect away from the request because he cant

 

[Shusha]

I think in that case there was no option but not for the reason's you state. They were Israeli citizens and Israel would have been bound to protect them. They wouldn't be Palestinian citizens, ...

Why wouldn't they be Palestinian citizens? Are you saying that they wouldn't have been granted Palestinian citizenship if they had stayed? Why not?

And my entire point was that Israel is bound to protect them and they would have been in grave danger -- that's why they had to be removed. We agree.